Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I hope you are not going to tell me that most nurses and elementary and high school teachers in the 40's and 50's were not women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stella_Omega

If you haven't heard the answers to these arguments a hundred times already I'll eat my hat.

That was not a question to be answered; it was a comment of fact. Nurses and teachers are considered to be professionals, and the majority of them in the Forties and Fifties were women. And, I have no objections to your eliminating that hat one way or another.

I cited paternity suits and religion as two examples of restrictions. Personally, I believe marital vows keep more men's pants zipped up than anything else, except maybe lack of opportity.

Quote:

Wow. That's not a very flattering portrait of male sapience you paint there, Box.

No, it's not. How often on this forum have men been accused of thinking weith the "little head" rather than the big one? It's an exaggeration, but not an untruth.

In the 40s and 50s, elementary and secondary school teaching was NOT considered a "profession." Being a college professor was. Nursing was not a profession, being a doctor was. being a secretary was not a profession, Being a business man was.

The jobs that women held were not professions. The jobs that men held were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sr71plt

I rather wish you did eat your hat. It's not very flattering.

I dont want to, all the fur would get stuck in my teeth. And it keeps my ears warm.

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

A few years back, SSS and I did a short story called, "Gentlemen, Start Your Pussies" which dealt with the same problem. An old country boy was giving the local mens club a few pointers in the care and feed of pussies when he got a little help from a lady friend.

I don't have a link to it as it's under our mutual pen name.

The story is a fun romp and writing with SSS was the most fun I think I've ever had with my clothes on.

Oh do please find it. I'd like to read it.
A PM would be appreciated.

As to "You're beautiful", I always found that saying it in the morning, as I went to work and she was wearing an old dressing gown and slippers, was well appreciated.

If a fellow cannot get over is "imperative" demand for getting laid and simply enjoy being with his life's mate, he needs some serious help.
A baseball bat might work. . .

It gets to a point where the urge for sex may become a push/pull situation. I hate getting into that cycle. I haven't gotten into one sexually, but for a while I was playing a video game on a friend's console, and I would ask him if I could play for a few hours.

It got to a point where I had gone three weeks without playing. I was offering to play while he was at class, when he wasn't in the room, etc. But he kept refusing because he had gotten so annoyed that whenever I asked, it would automatically make him angry and say no.

I can sympathize with the man who kept wanting sex from her, because it gets longer and longer for the asker, and the only way to truly escape a push/pull cycle is to ignore whatever you want for a long period of time.

In the 40s and 50s, elementary and secondary school teaching was NOT considered a "profession." Being a college professor was. Nursing was not a profession, being a doctor was. being a secretary was not a profession, Being a business man was.

The jobs that women held were not professions. The jobs that men held were.

Stella's right, Box. Think on back, or if you can't, read a few books from those times written for young girls. These were jobs, ones for single women until they married. In fact, some of these jobs wouldn't let the woman remain if she married. Some secretarial and teaching positions.

I recently re-read a bunch of books for young girls written by a woman who'd been a nurse (unmarried) between the 20-50's. I'd read them in jr. high and wanted to see how they held up. They were interesting and odd, but the one thing that struck me was that one brilliant young nurse, a master anesthesiologist, barely graduates and then gives it all up, all those years of learning, all her talents as nurse, because she get married. The main character holds off getting married herself to stay in nursing. Then gives it up and only goes back to it when her husband gets sick and can't work. And the third girl in the trio doesn't marry at all because she want's to stay a nurse (and probably because she was a lesbian, but that's me projecting ).

Before the 70's, none of these jobs were considered professions. They were just jobs that women were expected to hold until they married. Then their "profession" (their only acceptable "profession") was to be wife and mother. You lived through some of those decades, you know this. So you should know that your examples really don't hold water there. NOW nursing and teaching and such are professions. But women had to work really hard to get them that respect and designation.

Stella's right, Box. Think on back, or if you can't, read a few books from those times written for young girls. These were jobs, ones for single women until they married. In fact, some of these jobs wouldn't let the woman remain if she married. Some secretarial and teaching positions.

I recently re-read a bunch of books for young girls written by a woman who'd been a nurse (unmarried) between the 20-50's. I'd read them in jr. high and wanted to see how they held up. They were interesting and odd, but the one thing that struck me was that one brilliant young nurse, a master anesthesiologist, barely graduates and then gives it all up, all those years of learning, all her talents as nurse, because she get married. The main character holds off getting married herself to stay in nursing. Then gives it up and only goes back to it when her husband gets sick and can't work. And the third girl in the trio doesn't marry at all because she want's to stay a nurse (and probably because she was a lesbian, but that's me projecting ).

Before the 70's, none of these jobs were considered professions. They were just jobs that women were expected to hold until they married. Then their "profession" (their only acceptable "profession") was to be wife and mother. You lived through some of those decades, you know this. So you should know that your examples really don't hold water there. NOW nursing and teaching and such are professions. But women had to work really hard to get them that respect and designation.

I have always thought of teaching and nursing as professions, because they both required a considerable amount of college and certification after that. Additionally, nurses in the military service were officers, as were doctors and lawyers and other professionals.

Some of the female teachers in the elementary and high schools I attended in the Forties and Fifties were married and some were not.

I don't really have time to dip into this today, but can't let this pass. It isn't as simple as this, ladies. I'm old enough to have been involved in hiring and advancement in the 70s and 80s and lived through the brunt of the "equality for women in the job market" movement. The real problem in advancing women in the job world wasn't them getting married--it was them having children, and wanting/needing to take time off to have them (and then, increasing, more time off to initially raise them). While still developing toward management positions alongside men, they were gone for big chunks of time. (More recently, of course, this is being equalized by the same privileges being accorded men/fathers. All of this, of course, to the detriment of single women and men who weren't adding babies to their lives.)

This represents a real problem for the office and for some of the employees. They simply aren't there anymore for a big chunk of time. They aren't developing skills and they aren't contributing to the success of the office (and by the 80s they were still on the payroll as, on the ledger, a total loss). The real problem came in fitting them back into the office when they returned. By the 90s, the forced trend was to give them full credit in advancement terms to the time they were away (and a total financial drag on the office). This put them back in full competition with both men and women who hadn't been away. But, in most cases, that's where they are being placed. In practical terms, this made them more than equal to their peers.

And the office wasn't supposed to shy away from getting into the situation by not looking at the future probable progression of careers. Well, guess what.

On top of this, by the mid 80s, women and minorities were being given preference in the initial hiring.

This was/is reality. The issue isn't simple, and, as with other things, it's a reality that the women's advocates just won't acknowledge in their striving to be more equal by "oh woeing" that they aren't equal.

I was in the workplace working this, and, no, damn few women were doing anything else but wanting it all, not being able to look at the full picture one bit because they just must be more equal than others while squealing their inequality. The women's movement equivalent of the NRA.

Your response doesn't surprise me one bit. Zealots aren't known for their objectivity.

I was in the workplace working this, and, no, damn few women were doing anything else but wanting it all, not being able to look at the full picture one bit because they just must be more equal than others while squealing their inequality. The women's movement equivalent of the NRA.

Your response doesn't surprise me one bit.

The old lady is waving her finger again. Pilot must not agree with equal rights therefore any woman or man for that matter that does is wrong.

I have determined that an old lady is exactly the best description for you. A hysterical one at that.

You also as always do a very good job of making yourself out to be the fraud you are. No one with even a fraction of all your alleged experiences could really be this close minded.

I was in the workplace working this, and, no, damn few women were doing anything else but wanting it all, not being able to look at the full picture one bit because they just must be more equal than others while squealing their inequality. The women's movement equivalent of the NRA.

Your response doesn't surprise me one bit. Zealots aren't known for their objectivity.

I couldn't possibly be more condescending than you, Pilot.

I would advise you to stop projecting your faults onto everyone around you, but if that were possible it would have happened by now.

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

Stella's right, Box. Think on back, or if you can't, read a few books from those times written for young girls. These were jobs, ones for single women until they married. In fact, some of these jobs wouldn't let the woman remain if she married. Some secretarial and teaching positions.

Before the 70's, none of these jobs were considered professions. They were just jobs that women were expected to hold until they married. Then their "profession" (their only acceptable "profession") was to be wife and mother. You lived through some of those decades, you know this. So you should know that your examples really don't hold water there. NOW nursing and teaching and such are professions. But women had to work really hard to get them that respect and designation.

I don;t think it was quite that bad as I grew up in the 50s. Teaching had always been a "Profession". Several of my lady teachers were married and had no trouble or grief to my knowledge.
Nursing was always regarded by the College of Nursing (the governing body ) as a profession, but generally not regarded that way by many hospital authorities - at least, not publicly.

I don;t think it was quite that bad as I grew up in the 50s. Teaching had always been a "Profession". Several of my lady teachers were married and had no trouble or grief to my knowledge.
Nursing was always regarded by the College of Nursing (the governing body ) as a profession, but generally not regarded that way by many hospital authorities - at least, not publicly.

This could be a UK/US difference, maybe?

I remember reading once, in the pre-internet days, that as women moved into fields that had been previously dominated by men -- like teaching -- those fields came to be far less well-regarded. Not surprising, but interesting to see it written down like that.

I don't really have time to dip into this today, but can't let this pass. It isn't as simple as this, ladies. I'm old enough to have been involved in hiring and advancement in the 70s and 80s and lived through the brunt of the "equality for women in the job market" movement. The real problem in advancing women in the job world wasn't them getting married--it was them having children, and wanting/needing to take time off to have them (and then, increasing, more time off to initially raise them). While still developing toward management positions alongside men, they were gone for big chunks of time. (More recently, of course, this is being equalized by the same privileges being accorded men/fathers. All of this, of course, to the detriment of single women and men who weren't adding babies to their lives.)

This represents a real problem for the office and for some of the employees. They simply aren't there anymore for a big chunk of time. They aren't developing skills and they aren't contributing to the success of the office (and by the 80s they were still on the payroll as, on the ledger, a total loss). The real problem came in fitting them back into the office when they returned. By the 90s, the forced trend was to give them full credit in advancement terms to the time they were away (and a total financial drag on the office). This put them back in full competition with both men and women who hadn't been away. But, in most cases, that's where they are being placed. In practical terms, this made them more than equal to their peers.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point this out, but women have babies with the participation of men. It's not like it's this evil plot by women; that's just the end of the biological stick we got handed.

Women in this country, if they are lucky, get 12 weeks of maternity leave. Assuming you work from 20 to 65, that's a maximum six months out maternity leave out of a a forty-five year working career, based on the average American reproduction of two children per woman. So what's this big chunk of time you are talking about? You really think six months in 45 years is a big huge advantage. I guess if we women want equality, we should say "Fuck you we're not perpetuating the species, because we're such a drag on society when we do. If you guys want someone to take care of you when you are old and grey, you better start cloning yourselves."

Of course, I shouldn't have to point this out, but women have babies with the participation of men. It's not like it's this evil plot by women; that's just the end of the biological stick we got handed.

So what in terms of reality in society? It's only been in this century that men have gotten involved in sharing maternity leave (which I mentioned). So this is just irrelevant to how the issue has actually played in society historically. It's also irrelevant to those men and women who stayed on the job and didn't take off to have/raise babies.

It still, in terms of my comments, doesn't cover the "equal" access to employment and advancement by both women and men who haven't decided to have both work and babies. It's still a "wanting to have it all" regardless of others issue. It's still a wanting to be more equal than others situation.

Three months is a big chunk of time in a big business or government project office, and requires time both to prepare office projects before it and time to work back into the office after it--and it can be downright devasting for a small business. I don't think you are looking from all perspectives on this issue. In reality, women have taken years off and expected to be reinserted in the office as if they never left in terms of advancement. They have sued for it and tried to guilt their offices on it.

I'm guessing you are yet another one who hasn't actually been in management and having to deal with this issue objectively, trying to be fair with all. That's the basis of my point on some of the discussion on this thread--it's not objective, it does not give objective consideration to all aspects of the issue. It is not a simplistic issue.

I remember reading once, in the pre-internet days, that as women moved into fields that had been previously dominated by men -- like teaching -- those fields came to be far less well-regarded. Not surprising, but interesting to see it written down like that.

I read that, too, somewhere. I know as a retired teacher, however much we might have contributed to some legislator's campaign, when it came time to vote, the prison guards union always did better than we did. Also, I saw where because in the old USSR, most doctors were women, the profession had no where near the status it has in the US. So, I believe it even if I can't find the reference.

Don’t know if I ever told you, but you were the first person I “met” on Lit. You invited me into Molly’s thread and made me feel at home. I really appreciated that. You also prolly know more about the “doings” of our family than just about anybody else on Lit. That’s cuz you care and are appreciated for being you.--posthumous message from Safe_Bet. And I still care and I still love her. Rest in the Light, Suzy.